Just because a lot of creation scientists are free thinkers and go against the grain of what the majority of secular scientists think, does not make us automatically wrong.

It also doesn't make them right. That's something that each scientist has to demonstrate, experiment by experiment, regardless of personal beliefs.

The reason that mainstream science is laughing at creation science is that the verifiable facts have come down overwhelmingly in favour of mainstream science, and no creation scientist has yet gotten past the hypothesis stage to formulate an actual theory.

Skep has just referred to himself as a "creationist scientist", thereby answering any lingering questions about him. Liberty U is apparently even worse that I thought.

Logged

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Interesting you post that picture. I see you believe that things get more complex over time instead of progressing toward disorder. This is an interesting belief because it contradicts what we know about entropy. Energy in a closed system can not increase the order of things. Since the universe is a closed system, we would not be able to see anything progressing from disorder to order.

The total entropy of a closed system can only increase. However, there is no reason that the entropy in part of the universe cannot decrease, provided that it does not decrease the total entropy of the universe. The Sun alone generates enough entropy (through the dispersion of solar energy) to outweigh anything we do to decrease entropy here on Earth. Never mind all the other stars, all the black holes, etc. In short, our actions here on Earth have no meaningful effect on universal entropy - we don't even noticeably affect the universal rate of entropy increase, let alone running any risk of breaking the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

What you don't seem to realize is that your argument regarding God is exactly like this.

Quote from: skeptic54768

I am sorry, but I am not a fresh young mind in the 1st grade willing to believe anything a grown up says. Dawkins wants to hook 'em while they're young so it's ingrained in their minds and they will feel weird if they doubt evolution.

Funny, that's how theists operate - note that children of religious parents start being taught religious stuff before they're even able to read, let alone have the mental development to question what they're being told.

No, there isn't. The "2nd story" is a zooming in on the creation of man and what happened that day. It's not a different story.

Yes, it is a different story. It isn't just that the order is different either, although that's a key point. In the first story, the order goes plants, animals, humans (more to the point, it specifically mentions that humans were made male and female). In the second, it goes Adam (male human), plants, animals, Eve (female human). Also, note the chronology of the first story: Plants on day 3, animals on days 5 and 6, humans on day 6. Yet in the second story, Adam was there before both plants and animals.

Genesis 2:5 says that no plants had yet been made for there were no people to till them, and no rain to water them.Genesis 2:6 says that the land was being watered.Genesis 2:7 says that Adam (man) was created.Genesis 2:8 says that a garden was made.Genesis 2:9 says that trees grew.Genesis 2:10 says that rivers were made.Genesis 2:11-14 names the first four rivers.Genesis 2:15-17 is where God told Adam his rights and responsibilities.Genesis 2:18-20 is where animals were made.Genesis 2:21-22 is where Eve (woman) was made.

There is no way to reconcile the two sequences of events without a lot of mental gymnastics, which violate Occam's Razor due to the assumptions they have to make.

Quote from: skeptic54768

How do you guys not know this stuff?

A much better question is, how do you not know that the two creation stories have a distinctly different order of events?

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow, you are not understanding yourself. Truth has no path. Truth is living and therefore changing. Bruce lee

And just which creation account would that be?There are two stories in Genesis, did god have to make two guesses?

No, there isn't. The "2nd story" is a zooming in on the creation of man and what happened that day. It's not a different story.

How do you guys not know this stuff?

Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.)

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

which is a different order than

Genesis 2:18-19 (Humans were created before the other animals.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

orThe Order of Creation

Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.

Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam.Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam.Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Besides from which, even though he's wrong about this stuff, not saying anything would imply that we have no answer to it. I think he's counting on that to a degree.

He ignores or dismisses any scientific,reasonable or even plausible explanation. He knows he is wrong,but will never admit it. It is like banging your head against a brick wall,it only feels good when you stop

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Besides from which, even though he's wrong about this stuff, not saying anything would imply that we have no answer to it. I think he's counting on that to a degree.

Maybe that's what talkorigins or a FAQ is for, and not answering them might deprive us of some excellent snark[1] but, unfortunately, that's also exactly the action that trolls count on for regular meals and night-time amusement.

For a sad example of what can happen, albeit absent moderation,[2] take a look at the WWGHA/blog. There a small group of trolls[3] derails each and every thread using the the same approach as does SkepTroll.[4]

I doubt much of this is new to most here, but sometimes we can forget to stand back and look at from a detached view point.

Disclaimer: I've had him on ignore since his flagrant dishonesty when squirming out of a debate with median and only see his posts when people reply to him.

Make stupid statements, the more outrageous the better, and count on them being refuted. Once refuted, change the subject and demand people prove something else, which he will then ignore, eventually cycling back to the good old classics. Rinse and repeat until the OP is completely forgotten and people are knocking themselves over to prove him wrong.

Logged

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool -- Richard Feynman

No, my argument is based on empiricism. I see systems created using intelligence. The universe is a majorly complex system, as is the human body. This means it's only logical that intelligence is responsible for the universe and everything in it.

Logic and empiricism are 2 gifts from God that we can use to deduce his existence. The problem is that a lot of atheists try to turn it around against God.

But the facts show that empiricism and logic prove God's existence.

Nope, they don't. Nature proves nature. And it doesn't tell us how it get it until we investigate. Merely positing some-thing you call 'God' does nothing to further the discussion - b/c you cannot explain a mystery with another mystery. You have your searching processes backwards (starting with your conclusion is the wrong way).

You haven't heard a peep from Him because you're an atheist. God does not show up where He's not wanted. That's rude behavior.

Do you show up to people's homes uninvited and just walk in the front door and plop on their couch and turn on the tv?

Bearing false witness again I see. Way to go team! This alleged 'God' showed up to Satan, the angels, Saul of Tarsus, Pharaoh, doubting Thomas, and thousands more (again supposedly). Sorry dude. You're trying to makeup your own version of Christianity. It's pure bullshit.

You mean: Why do we not humour you with your incorrect belief that Genesis 2 is a "zooming in", when it's not. I believe we know about your response, but you fail to know that we have a response to your response.

How do you not know that?

Logged

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

No, my argument is based on empiricism. I see systems created using intelligence. The universe is a majorly complex system, as is the human body. This means it's only logical that intelligence is responsible for the universe and everything in it.

Logic and empiricism are 2 gifts from God that we can use to deduce his existence. The problem is that a lot of atheists try to turn it around against God.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Size exists only in the mind. There is no objective way to determine size. This is what Berkeley was talking about.

To a human, a basketball is small. To an ant, a basketball is HUGE. What is the objective size of the basketball? Does the basketball have 2 different sizes at once? It's all based on perception, which is based on the mind.

Same thing with color. A person sees something as completely red and you see it as completely blue. Does the object have 2 different colors at once? No, because color only exists in the mind.

None of our senses escape the problem of perception, which is why things can only exist in minds. Ergo, God's mind is why everything exists.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Besides from which, even though he's wrong about this stuff, not saying anything would imply that we have no answer to it. I think he's counting on that to a degree.

He ignores or dismisses any scientific,reasonable or even plausible explanation. He knows he is wrong,but will never admit it. It is like banging your head against a brick wall,it only feels good when you stop

But once again, you are assuming that the scientific approach is the best way to learn. This has not been proven. You can not use the scientific method to validate the scientific method. It's circular.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

And just which creation account would that be?There are two stories in Genesis, did god have to make two guesses?

No, there isn't. The "2nd story" is a zooming in on the creation of man and what happened that day. It's not a different story.

How do you guys not know this stuff?

Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.)

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

which is a different order than

Genesis 2:18-19 (Humans were created before the other animals.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

orThe Order of Creation

Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.

Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam.Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam.Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later.

You must have omitted a word or phrase.

The Bible I use says "Now the Lord God had formed....." which implies that God already created the animals and the author was just reminding the reader that the animals were there.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

I am biting my tongue and bidding adieu to all conversations with you, Skeptic. No progress whatsoever has been made in this thread or any other, no meetings of the minds has occurred, and I find the whole exercise to be a total waste of energy and bandwidth. Even now you think that you've convinced Quesi of something, when you merely answered her question. She now understands your perspective. And even now, you insists that science is circular but ignores the fact that nothing is more circular than the bible. I can't take it any more.

Skep, if you are really determined to bring folks to your Jesus, you're in the wrong place. I suggest that you rethink your participation here as well. After nearly 1200 posts, you have accomplished nothing positive, and lots negative. For me personally, my opinion of christians in general has fallen several notches because of you. Your energies too would be better used elsewhere.

Since you haven't bothered responding to my major posts, there is certainly no need to respond to this minor one. I'm tired of you, I assume you're tired of me. I have never ever put a participant on WWGHA into "ignore" status, but I am going to do that right now with you. That's no way to be a winner.

I am biting my tongue and bidding adieu to all conversations with you, Skeptic. No progress whatsoever has been made in this thread or any other, no meetings of the minds has occurred, and I find the whole exercise to be a total waste of energy and bandwidth. Even now you think that you've convinced Quesi of something, when you merely answered her question. She now understands your perspective. And even now, you insists that science is circular but ignores the fact that nothing is more circular than the bible. I can't take it any more.

Skep, if you are really determined to bring folks to your Jesus, you're in the wrong place. I suggest that you rethink your participation here as well. After nearly 1200 posts, you have accomplished nothing positive, and lots negative. For me personally, my opinion of christians in general has fallen several notches because of you. Your energies too would be better used elsewhere.

Since you haven't bothered responding to my major posts, there is certainly no need to respond to this minor one. I'm tired of you, I assume you're tired of me. I have never ever put a participant on WWGHA into "ignore" status, but I am going to do that right now with you. That's no way to be a winner.

PP

I am sorry you feel that way. To me, everything I say makes perfect sense.

I just find it shocking that your opinion of Christians has fallen because of me, but when we bring up how our opinion of atheists has fallen because of Stalin and Pol Pot, you guys get upset and say that's not fair.

All I'm asking for is consistency on both sides.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Actually we are consistently right and you are consistently wrong, so that much has been achieved

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

I am biting my tongue and bidding adieu to all conversations with you, Skeptic. No progress whatsoever has been made in this thread or any other, no meetings of the minds has occurred, and I find the whole exercise to be a total waste of energy and bandwidth. Even now you think that you've convinced Quesi of something, when you merely answered her question. She now understands your perspective. And even now, you insists that science is circular but ignores the fact that nothing is more circular than the bible. I can't take it any more.

Skep, if you are really determined to bring folks to your Jesus, you're in the wrong place. I suggest that you rethink your participation here as well. After nearly 1200 posts, you have accomplished nothing positive, and lots negative. For me personally, my opinion of christians in general has fallen several notches because of you. Your energies too would be better used elsewhere.

Since you haven't bothered responding to my major posts, there is certainly no need to respond to this minor one. I'm tired of you, I assume you're tired of me. I have never ever put a participant on WWGHA into "ignore" status, but I am going to do that right now with you. That's no way to be a winner.

PP

I am sorry you feel that way. To me, everything I say makes perfect sense.

I just find it shocking that your opinion of Christians has fallen because of me, but when we bring up how our opinion of atheists has fallen because of Stalin and Pol Pot, you guys get upset and say that's not fair.

All I'm asking for is consistency on both sides.

Since when did being a murderous dictator,who wishes to stay in power have anything to do with Atheism?

You haven't heard a peep from Him because you're an atheist. God does not show up where He's not wanted.

I feel like I'm repeating myself from months ago... Many of us were once sincere Christians that prayed daily and we never heard a peep. You were asked why months ago and never had an answer. Why does God ignore people like me but not others, like you? Plus what you say here doesn't jive with your conversion story. You said that you were an atheist that prayed to Yahweh to heal a dog, and he actually answered that prayer. God answered an atheist (and it contradicts what you typed). If I were to get on my knees today and pray and honestly tell God I want to accept his son as my Lord and Savior, I wouldn't hear or feel anything. Explain why.

If being an atheist isn't the reason God doesn't speak to us, and being sincere isn't the reason God doesn't speak to us, then what's the reason?

I am sorry you feel that way. To me, everything I say makes perfect sense.

I just find it shocking that your opinion of Christians has fallen because of me, but when we bring up how our opinion of atheists has fallen because of Stalin and Pol Pot, you guys get upset and say that's not fair.

All I'm asking for is consistency on both sides.

Since when did being a murderous dictator,who wishes to stay in power have anything to do with Atheism?[/quote]

Sadly, 12, you quoted him, and quotes aren't deleted in the ignore system. But tell the dude if he wants to compare his effect on the world favorably with Pol Pot and Stalin, that's his business. Its not at all what I said, but if he wants to interpret it that heavy-handedly, that's up to him.

I was just saying I was less impressed with christians now that I know more about how they fail to think. That doesn't mean I assume they are all tyrants and such.